Compettitive Inertia

[leadsop97]

this whole topic is very interesting. I think all corps want to be competitive. It is obvious that some are just not (in terms of placement). I think much of this has to do with reputation and style. Why do corps like the Cadets, Blue Devils, Cavaliers, etc get the largest pool of talent year in and year out? Well, word spreads when success is had. Were the Cadets always successful? No. I remember looking at scores from the past and noting that the Crossmen used to quite handily beat them. However, as soon as they found what they were good at, the name really spread like wildfire. Same with the Cavaliers. Even after 1995, the Cavaliers were often overlooked by some of the top talents because they didn't quite have the reputation the Blue Devils and Cadets had. The changed, I think, in this decade. Now it seems like everyone wants to march Cavies.

Then there is style. My 3 favorite corps have always been Madison, SCV, and Crossmen. I love what they do year in and year out. That type of love for a style can also bring competitiveness to a corps.

All in all, I believe things change over time, whether it's drum corps or whatever else. Things come and go, people come and go. What do you think is going to happen when those big names that we all know and love/hate are no longer able to participate in the activity as instructors/caption heads/designers? New blood will emerge (most likely from my generation), and at this point, I'd bet we will likely see a changing of the guard. Nothing can last forever, and that includes success. As much as last year's placement might motivate certain corps (i.e. The Cadets or Crown), I think it will only last for a certain amount of time. I don't think that day can come quick enough.

[Baritone13]

Competitive Inertia would be a good band name

[TerriTroop]

Well, to me it appears you are saying you need a strong design team and a high level of talent to be at the top...which is as it should be, and ever was. I don't see it as any sort of comment on the 'current judging system'. It says you need to be the best in ALL areas to be in the top group, placement-wise

I didn't make my point as well as I had hoped. I was just trying to say that design teams have grown larger and mostly separate now from the educational staff. There are more and more "consultants" and "coordinators" in the mix, many of whom serve multiple corps at one time. That is where we've gone, rather organically, thanks to the box/build up system and how corps need to play to that system. No harm, no foul, just the way of the world now. But all those consultants and coordinators cost money, and therein lies the problem for lower tier corps.

[doyle079]

edit

Edited January 15, 2009 by doyle079

[mcjordansc]

I don't know if I would call it competitive inertia or just "front-running". I know of a lot of good players who rook-out in the top 5 corps. If they would stay with their lower tier corps, they could help produce the inertia necessary to make changes in placement for their corps. But it seems that time runs out on their chances to win and they choose to change for a shot at winning. This seems to more fit the frontrunner definition, IMHO.

The lower tier corps will continue to swap placements, but never really gather the momentum to improve their placement. The one corps that may be the exception is Blue Stars. I am curious to see if they continue with the competitive inertia, or do they fall prey to the front-runners as well?

Fall prey to the front-runners?

[Bruckner8]

There has been some talk as of late regarding compettitive inertia, as it applies to the previous season's placement of a given corps affecting its compettitveness the following year. It would seem this may have something to do with the top 5 containing at least 3 super corps that are seemingly impossible to knock out of top 5, and would seem to explain the struggle certain corps have to get out of last place or to make semis each year. Is the impact of compettitve inertia so great as to permanently keep the top and bottom end relatively stagnent?

CI is only a theory that tries to show how/why certain corps keep winning (errr, scoring higher), by using history and pattern recognition as a guide. 2008 came and went without changing a single thing about CI in the upper ranks. The fundamental conclusion of CI is: A Corps will not WIN unless it first finishes 2nd or 3rd. Then it goes on to show how exceedingly difficult it is to finish 2nd or 3rd, when certain corps keep getting the benefit of the doubt. (There's that silly artistic judge again!) I digress...anway, another fundametnal property of CI is the fact the winningest corps have a very long and consistent "voice" in DCI, with long-tenured Directors, Design Staff, etc, with truly visionary leadership and creative skills.

If we're going to use CI in the discussion of the lower ranks, we have to first ask if there are any corps with "very long and consistent 'voice' in DCI, with long-tenured Directors, Design Staff, etc, with truly visionary leadership and creative skills?" I can't think of one. Crown's been at it since 1990 (same director I beleive). Bluecoats since 1972 (same strcuture, trust me). Cadets and BD for over 20 years. Until VERY recently, Cavies too. SCV and Phantom "wobbled" a few times with leadership, and so has their placement. They're both back on track however, and the future looks bright. Madison...wow, more proof of CI...their entire organization crumbled, and POOF, they're out of it entirely.

Do *some* kids fall into "front-running?" If by front-running you mean audition for corps with a history of excellence...Umm, I certainly hope so. So what? What is the local corps doing to send a message (leadership) to that kid to keep him there? I'm sure Donny Allen has kids in Pioneer's hornline that will be/are lifers because of HIM, PERIOD. Now, imagine if everyone in the entire Pioneer organziation is that committed, passionate, and putting excellence first. (maybe they are; I don't really know. Just sayin...)

Good leaders are VERY HARD TO FIND. DCI bears that out. Then the good leaders have to find equally qualified designers. And the team has to hire equally qualified managers (Caption heads). And the managers have to hire equally qualified techs (worker-bees). And the organization has to have equally qualifed support staff. Oh yeah...and the membership has to be AS EQUALLY QUALIFED. It's a team.

The top tier corps "get it" all the way up and down the orgnization. For lower-tier corps, there always seems to be miscommunication, ulterior motives, lack of disipline (staff and kids), back-stabbing (Ha! happens at every level!), petty-BS, putting one's ego before the membership, ETC! Any sign of that is death to the success of an organization, especially one as precious and fragile as a drum & bugle corps.

Bottom line: To build CI from ground zero, you first need a team that's on the same page, and fanatically dedicated to the membship. That's very difficult in its own right, and not even the top tiers succeed every year.

[bersurkman]

Fall prey to the front-runners?

To clarify, I meant "front-runners" to be the students who rook-out in top 5 corps.